On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:30:27 +0200 Paolo Ornati <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm re-testing with 2.6.15.6 --> it is compiling by some hours without > a single segfault. Maybe I've exagerated here, it is finished now: real 106m35.548s user 56m11.111s sys 33m48.371s No problems as expected. -- Paolo Ornati Linux 2.6.15.6 on x86_64 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- From: Paolo Ornati <[email protected]>
- Random GCC segfaults -- Was: [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- From: Paolo Ornati <[email protected]>
- Re: Random GCC segfaults -- Was: [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: Random GCC segfaults -- Was: [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- From: Paolo Ornati <[email protected]>
- Re: Random GCC segfaults -- Was: [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: Random GCC segfaults -- Was: [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- From: Paolo Ornati <[email protected]>
- [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- Prev by Date: Re: Save 320K on production machines?
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Previous by thread: Re: Random GCC segfaults -- Was: [2.6.16] slab error in slab_destroy_objs(): cache `radix_tree_node'...
- Next by thread: Re: Random GCC segfaults --> Just Bad Memory
- Index(es):
 |